America can be a superpower or a welfare state, but not both.

Aramike · 05-30-11, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

The military needs to understand the Cold War is over. Looking at platforms being pursued for acquisition, force structures, and places the American military has a large, permanent presence sometimes you would not know it.

That being said, our military should still be strong one. And still can be after massive cuts with its bloated size.

PD

Examples?

I may have agreed with you 10 years ago, but today???

Skybird · 05-30-11, 04:13 AM

That is typical American binary thinking again, black-white-painting. Either we are a superprower, or we are a wellfare state. No in between. It is stupid to think like this.

Additional to defence budget, there are the socalled black budgets, that are unofficial and thus hard to count. The industry directly contributes to it, rich family clans with busniess interests, lobbies, etc etc. We talk about money in the high billions here. none of that has any legitimaiton by laws, the constitution, or through the voters.

Dear America, a bit less dramatizing and thinking in most polaristic extremes, and a bit more modesty and moderation! Just a bit less globals claims and demands, and a bit more social fairness and more equalised chnaces for people instead of a split between poor and rich gaping more and more apart. A bit less tax reliefs for the big companies, and just a bit more modest defence budgets.

This would win many hundreds of billions.

BTW, I know the book by Paul Kennedy the article refers to (briulliant book, btw, and very pleasant to read). WSJ claims with great naturalness Kennedy was wrong when preicting the overstretching of the American Emnpire, like happened to the Roman and British empire before. But that claim by the journal is baseless. There is the dollar crisis, there is the debt crisis, and there are two wars in 8 years showing the hightech military of the empire beeing shown its limits in forming capabilities. There is an energy crisis, too. There is a credit crisis, and there is a falling trust into the Greenback, and threats by the rating agencies to reduce America's credibility. There is an erosion of American infrastructure and a 3rd-world-level powergrid. There are states like California that by the middle of the years sail at the brink of bancruptcy and must shut down public services. If all this does not yell "Overstretch!", then I do not know what the word means.

August · 05-30-11, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is typical American binary thinking again, black-white-painting. Either we are a superprower, or we are a wellfare state. No in between. It is stupid to think like this.

Typical American binary thinking?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Some German guy in another thread

.
Germany has just decided to fully pull out of nuclear energy within the next ten years.

What nobody says today is: the Shroeder government before merkel also had ruled that. Then came the CDU to power and opened the deal again, fully trusting into nuclear power. Then came Fzuskushima, and what many people do not understand is that us Germans have suffered much much dearer from Fukushima than those Japanese: we immediatly felt so much Angst that now Merkel opportunistically U-turned again and set course for leaving nuclear energy behind.

Folks who throw stones ought not to live in glass houses!

mookiemookie · 05-30-11, 10:41 AM

Off topic, yeah...

The WSJ has become nothing but a right wing rag sheet ever since Murdoch took it over. Once upon a time, you'd actually find economic and market news in it. Then the Op Ed section became like watching Fox News. And now, the noise machine has invaded the rest of the paper - the supposed unbiased "news." It's become just another mouthpiece for the propaganda machine who can't even get their facts right in many cases. Those that rely on the WSJ for making investment decisions are putting themselves at risk as the conflation of investment advice and political bias is a bad mix in general and a sure way to lose money.

Onkel Neal · 05-30-11, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Off topic, yeah...

The WSJ has become nothing but a right wing rag sheet ever since Murdoch took it over. Once upon a time, you'd actually find economic and market news in it. Then the Op Ed section became like watching Fox News. And now, the noise machine has invaded the rest of the paper - the supposed unbiased "news." It's become just another mouthpiece for the propaganda machine who can't even get their facts right in many cases. Those that rely on the WSJ for making investment decisions are putting themselves at risk as the conflation of investment advice and political bias is a bad mix in general and a sure way to lose money.

Mookie, I have a feeling anything pro-business is a right wing "rag sheet" to you. Does it matter? They simply posted a piece that supports Gates' position.

mookiemookie · 05-30-11, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Mookie, I have a feeling anything pro-business is a right wing "rag sheet" to you. Does it matter? They simply posted a piece that supports Gates' position.

Tsk tsk, Neal... I'm hurt.

I prefer to keep my financial news and politics separate. Barrons, the Economist, Business Week and Bloomberg are all pretty good at impratiality while delivering financial and economic news.

I fully agree with your statement about Europe taking a free ride on the U.S. military's dime:

The problem with Gates and this article is that they ignore a large chunk of the defense budget in their $530 bn number. It's not just the Pentagon's budget. It's the other things scattered across the budget...the $19.3 bn for our nuclear weapons program, $53 bn for the National Intelligence program, $6.6 bn for military aid to other countries. It's easy to make your case look good when you ignore large swaths of reality.

I stand by my assertion that the WSJ is nothing more than a political rag sheet anymore, and not a serious financial newspaper.

Tchocky · 05-30-11, 06:43 PM

WSJ has pretty good news coverage. Op-Ed pages are entirely skippable.

I don't think that Europe is getting a free ride security-wise from the US. In terms of optional excursions and sandy oil-related adventures, the US is definitely giving some countries a ride.

Skybird · 05-30-11, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Typical American binary thinking?

Folks who throw stones ought not to live in glass houses!

I throw inside and outside the glass house.

Regarding stone throwing, I am totally impartial.

Armistead · 05-30-11, 10:45 AM

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough.

We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe.

No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first.

The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

Gerald · 05-30-11, 10:50 AM

Many bases are not in use today in Europe, which on the whole represents a very small cost on the whole.

Oberon · 05-30-11, 11:10 AM

Italy was a superpower once, Britain too, as was Egypt, and Iraq. Great powers rise and fall, history shows us this, it's in how you accept this that governs the outcome of the nation. You can either keep holding on until the last minute and collapse in violence and chaos like Rome did, or slowly wind down like others did.

To be honest, I'd be a little less worried about one nation toppling and more worried about society as a whole collapsing, we are perhaps one great big superpower now, the whole planet is linked in a manner that, even fifty years ago (a gnats fingernail in the terms of the history of humanity) would only have been possible in the confines of one country. You can travel from New York to Paris in the same sort of convenience that you could from New York to *looks at US map* Philadelphia. You go back fifty or sixty years and such a trek would have involved a long trip by ship, go back another fifty years and it would have been an even longer trip. The concept of nationstates is fast becoming outdated, divisions are erupting not through race or nationality but through ideals, primarily because on this new world of the internet you can be any nationality or race, but generally you keep to one ideal. However the ticking bomb is resources, oil, water, food, our growing population and longer living society which places the accumulation of resources as a personal goal, well...unless we can pull some pretty nifty tech out of our backsides within the next century...heck probably even half that, well...we're looking at a nasty shock.

It's not governments that need to change...society needs to change.

Just my two cents and topic derailment...I'll call the breakdown gang...

Betonov · 05-30-11, 12:27 PM

Why would one even want to be a superpower. All the stress, bad publicity, nr.1 target of rouge states. It's not as if the world is a VictoriaII game, where you have to be a great power to influence other states and get first dibs on resources. Anything can be bought anywhere anytime. Slovenia is a tiny nations with as much influence in the geopolitical game than a midget has in a basketball game. But still, we have anything we want, because we can buy it anywhere, anytime.

Stealth Hunter · 05-31-11, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

You are well-spoken in highlighting the issues we face lol. What should have been recognized and asked about this whole "World Police" ideology a long time ago is... how the hell can any nation expect to solve the various problems of other nations when it can't even solve its own beforehand?

mookiemookie · 05-31-11, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead

It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war.

The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough.

We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe.

No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first.

The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

How many times have our leaders told us the latest military misadventure "isn't about nation building" as we go on to try to build a nation amenable to our interests.

Oberon · 05-31-11, 09:11 AM

Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours.

It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out.
However, if the US decided to cut back again on USAFE bases then I'd fully understand and support their decision, it is after all their military.

I do ponder, if perhaps the US, and other nations, need to do a hard reset on their finances, start a new peg system for it, stop any inflation and so forth. It's a tricky situation, and I really don't understand finances enough to be assertive on the subject, but it's not getting any better and whether this is due to a 'welfare state' or high military spending I do not know, but I think that both the US and other nations are fast approaching the point where a drastic measure is called for.

05-30-11, 04:13 AM	#2
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,630 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	That is typical American binary thinking again, black-white-painting. Either we are a superprower, or we are a wellfare state. No in between. It is stupid to think like this. Additional to defence budget, there are the socalled black budgets, that are unofficial and thus hard to count. The industry directly contributes to it, rich family clans with busniess interests, lobbies, etc etc. We talk about money in the high billions here. none of that has any legitimaiton by laws, the constitution, or through the voters. Dear America, a bit less dramatizing and thinking in most polaristic extremes, and a bit more modesty and moderation! Just a bit less globals claims and demands, and a bit more social fairness and more equalised chnaces for people instead of a split between poor and rich gaping more and more apart. A bit less tax reliefs for the big companies, and just a bit more modest defence budgets. This would win many hundreds of billions. BTW, I know the book by Paul Kennedy the article refers to (briulliant book, btw, and very pleasant to read). WSJ claims with great naturalness Kennedy was wrong when preicting the overstretching of the American Emnpire, like happened to the Roman and British empire before. But that claim by the journal is baseless. There is the dollar crisis, there is the debt crisis, and there are two wars in 8 years showing the hightech military of the empire beeing shown its limits in forming capabilities. There is an energy crisis, too. There is a credit crisis, and there is a falling trust into the Greenback, and threats by the rating agencies to reduce America's credibility. There is an erosion of American infrastructure and a 3rd-world-level powergrid. There are states like California that by the middle of the years sail at the brink of bancruptcy and must shut down public services. If all this does not yell "Overstretch!", then I do not know what the word means. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

05-30-11, 10:41 AM	#4
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	Off topic, yeah... The WSJ has become nothing but a right wing rag sheet ever since Murdoch took it over. Once upon a time, you'd actually find economic and market news in it. Then the Op Ed section became like watching Fox News. And now, the noise machine has invaded the rest of the paper - the supposed unbiased "news." It's become just another mouthpiece for the propaganda machine who can't even get their facts right in many cases. Those that rely on the WSJ for making investment decisions are putting themselves at risk as the conflation of investment advice and political bias is a bad mix in general and a sure way to lose money. __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

05-30-11, 06:43 PM	#7
Tchocky Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 5,874 Downloads: 6 Uploads: 0	WSJ has pretty good news coverage. Op-Ed pages are entirely skippable. I don't think that Europe is getting a free ride security-wise from the US. In terms of optional excursions and sandy oil-related adventures, the US is definitely giving some countries a ride. __________________ [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

05-30-11, 10:50 AM	#10
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Many bases are not in use today in Europe, which on the whole represents a very small cost on the whole. __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

05-30-11, 10:45 AM	#9
Armistead Rear Admiral Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: on the Dan Posts: 10,880 Downloads: 364 Uploads: 0	It seems with the cost of military comes the desire to constantly use it. Bush ran against Clinton's nation building and now we nation build through wars and constantly police the world. We're rebuilding infrastructure in other nations why ours crumbles. It seems the US must always pay the price. Wars alone cost us over a trillion. Let's face it, much profit to be made from war. The cold war is over. Many of the platforms we have today give us very little bang for the buck. We spend more than the next five nations combined and to many that's not enough. We could easily shut down over 100 cold war military bases in Europe. No doubt the defense budget isn't gonna break us, but it must be on the table. My concern is constant wars and conflicts, why can't we mind our business. Our border is a warzone, let's protect it first. The bigger welfare state is the bail outs of corporations that stopped working for americans long ago.

05-30-11, 11:10 AM	#11
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Italy was a superpower once, Britain too, as was Egypt, and Iraq. Great powers rise and fall, history shows us this, it's in how you accept this that governs the outcome of the nation. You can either keep holding on until the last minute and collapse in violence and chaos like Rome did, or slowly wind down like others did. To be honest, I'd be a little less worried about one nation toppling and more worried about society as a whole collapsing, we are perhaps one great big superpower now, the whole planet is linked in a manner that, even fifty years ago (a gnats fingernail in the terms of the history of humanity) would only have been possible in the confines of one country. You can travel from New York to Paris in the same sort of convenience that you could from New York to looks at US map Philadelphia. You go back fifty or sixty years and such a trek would have involved a long trip by ship, go back another fifty years and it would have been an even longer trip. The concept of nationstates is fast becoming outdated, divisions are erupting not through race or nationality but through ideals, primarily because on this new world of the internet you can be any nationality or race, but generally you keep to one ideal. However the ticking bomb is resources, oil, water, food, our growing population and longer living society which places the accumulation of resources as a personal goal, well...unless we can pull some pretty nifty tech out of our backsides within the next century...heck probably even half that, well...we're looking at a nasty shock. It's not governments that need to change...society needs to change. Just my two cents and topic derailment...I'll call the breakdown gang...

05-30-11, 12:27 PM	#12
Betonov Navy Seal Join Date: May 2009 Location: Slovenia Posts: 8,647 Downloads: 26 Uploads: 0	Why would one even want to be a superpower. All the stress, bad publicity, nr.1 target of rouge states. It's not as if the world is a VictoriaII game, where you have to be a great power to influence other states and get first dibs on resources. Anything can be bought anywhere anytime. Slovenia is a tiny nations with as much influence in the geopolitical game than a midget has in a basketball game. But still, we have anything we want, because we can buy it anywhere, anytime.

05-31-11, 09:11 AM	#15
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Quite frankly, and I don't say this in a 'OMFG I'm from the UK and therefore must be the US's best buddy' but the US is welcome to keep their bases running over here, for one thing it brings in money for us from US airmen shopping in local places. For another it gives the US a nice refueling point without having to put up tankers, or indeed gives them somewhere to base the tankers (Mildenhall springs to mind) and it's nice to see US kit in the skies from time to time. Yes, the UK is very much riding on the coat-tails of the US military, primarily because we've lost most of ours. It's not a situation I'm exactly happy with, but at the same time it's nice to know that someone has our back until our idiots have sorted themselves out. However, if the US decided to cut back again on USAFE bases then I'd fully understand and support their decision, it is after all their military. I do ponder, if perhaps the US, and other nations, need to do a hard reset on their finances, start a new peg system for it, stop any inflation and so forth. It's a tricky situation, and I really don't understand finances enough to be assertive on the subject, but it's not getting any better and whether this is due to a 'welfare state' or high military spending I do not know, but I think that both the US and other nations are fast approaching the point where a drastic measure is called for.